Argument167【戮力】薰衣草亚薰衣草

地球的小星星UID：2345848

题目：ARGUMENT167 - A folk remedy* for insomnia, the scent in lavender flowers, has now been proved effective. In a recent study, 30 volunteers with chronic insomnia slept each night for three weeks on lavender-scented pillows in a controlled room where their sleep was monitored. During the first week, volunteers continued to take their usual sleeping medication. They slept soundly but wakened feeling tired. During the second week, the volunteers discontinued their medication. As a result, they slept less soundly than the previous week and felt even more tired. During the third week, the volunteers slept longer and more soundly than in the previous two weeks. This shows that over a short period of time lavender cures insomnia.

*A folk remedy is usually a plant-based form of treatment common to traditional forms of medicine, ones that developed before the advent of modern medical services and technology.
字数：357          用时：00:30:00          日期：2007-8-7 17:18:44

The argument is not cogent because it points out that over a short period of time lavender cures insomnia, on the basis of an unreasonable reasoning of a recent study. And I find this argument specious, on several grounds.

First of all, for a medical experiment to be accurate, it must be controlled, with a balance between the experimental and the control groups. In the above study, though, the arguer fails to provide any evidence about the control group. All the 30 volunteers are treated the same way in the three weeks; thus, we cannot tell it is the lavender that cures insomnia. For the experiment to be methodological reliability, the study should set the control group which does not use lavender-scented pillows. Otherwise, it is entirely possible that during the three weeks, the controlled room provides the volunteers a comfortable atmosphere to sleep-such as pleasing music, cool air, cozy bed that make the volunteers easy to sleep. We just do not know.

We might also ask: what if the patients got the psychological hint? Because all the volunteers had known the purpose of the experiment, they may have the subliminal inclination toward the purpose. If this were the case, the study’s result would be questionable, at best. Another element to consider is this: perhaps the sleeping medication still worked out in the patients’ body during the last two weeks. Due to the long-term use of sleeping pills, there may be some pill sediment in the patient’s body which led to the observed phenomenon. Besides, nor does the mere fact that the volunteers slept longer and more soundly during the third week lends support to the result that lavender cures insomnia. As we all know, the most significant (if any) feature of insomnia is that the patients cannot easily fall asleep, not the sleeping time and the soundness. But the arguer does not mention that.

Finally, some crucial terminology in the argument is also dubious. For example, does the number “30” can represent all the population with chronic insomnia? If these patients are all busy worker, then they may take this experiment after toil tasks, and fall asleep because of tiredness, not the lavender pillows. Also, what about the "three weeks"? As we all know, insomnia is a chronic disease; three weeks period is too short to prove anything, let alone the cure.

In a word, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must examine about reliability of the experiment and the real affect of lavender-scented pillows.



[ 本帖最后由 地球的小星星 于 2007-8-14 00:35 编辑 ]

LsofiaUID：2337843

The argument is not cogent because it points out that over a short period of time lavender cures insomnia, on the basis of an unreasonable reasoning of a recent study. And I find this argument specious, on several grounds.

First of all, for a medical experiment to be accurate, it must be controlled, with a balance between the experimental and the control groups. In the above study, though, the arguer fails to provide any evidence about the control group. All the 30 volunteers are treated the same way in the three weeks; thus, we cannot tell [whether]it is the lavender that cures insomnia. For the experiment to be methodological reliability, the study should set the control group which does not use lavender-scented pillows[with other same factors]. Otherwise, it is entirely possible that during the three weeks, the controlled room provides the volunteers a comfortable atmosphere to sleep-such as pleasing music, cool air, cozy bed that make the volunteers easy to sleep. We just do not know. 对照组我觉得可以放到最后来说明，一笔带过就行，毕竟这里是找错误

We might also ask: what if the patients got the psychological hint? Because all the volunteers had known the purpose of the experiment, they may have the subliminal inclination toward the purpose. If this were the case, the study’s result would be questionable, at best. Another element to 【be】considered is this: perhaps the sleeping medication still worked out in the patients’ body during the last two weeks. Due to the long-term use of sleeping pills, there may be some pill sediment in the patient’s body which led to the observed phenomenon. Besides, nor does the mere fact that the volunteers slept longer and more soundly during the third week lends support to the result that lavender cures insomnia. As we all know, the most significant (if any) feature of insomnia is that the patients cannot easily fall asleep, not the sleeping time and the soundness[什么意思？]. But the arguer does not mention that. 前两星期的情况也可以解释一下滴

Finally, some crucial terminology in the argument is also dubious. For example, does the number “30” can represent all the population with chronic insomnia? If these patients are all busy worker, then they may take this experiment after toil tasks, and fall asleep because of tiredness, not the lavender pillows. Also, what about the "three weeks"? As we all know, insomnia is a chronic disease; three weeks period is too short to prove anything, let alone the cure.

In a word, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must examine about reliability of the experiment and the real affect of lavender-scented pillows.

这篇我仔细想了想逻辑批判顺序，你看这样是否可行：
首先对三星期的症状进行分析，批判，不足以说明是薰衣草的作用（批效果）---》即使是薰衣草的功效，三个星期太短，失眠是慢性病，三星期根本看不出来---》即使三星期证明他们的失眠已好，但30个人样本少，不足以说明问题-->即使30人已足够，还有其他因素影响睡眠情况，比如你所说的心理暗示，还有失眠很大程度上是由于工作压力引起的，可能他们实验时，没有什么压力。另外，研究人员是否采取其他方式促进了志愿者的睡眠
在最后一段，可以将对照组提出，完善整个实验，你看这样是不是清晰点？
我是看了star版主的这篇有感而发的，你可以看看，有时间咱两可以讨论下，我觉得逻辑顺序还是蛮重要的，以前写作文时都是随便抓，没怎么注意
http://bbs.gter.ce.cn/bbs/thread-274535-1-1.html

顺便拍拍我这篇把，谢谢了！https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=724053&extra=page%3D1%26amp%3Bfilter%3Dtype%26amp%3Btypeid%3D103

小星星，最后祝你20号成功！听你的好消息哈！